Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheBiv | Hacker News Reader

What I typically do is start "leading the witness" by asking genuinely objective questions.

Genuine is the key there. You can never beat a boisterous person by being a prick with belittling or subjective questions. However, if you stick with concrete questions and examples then I have found it tends to disarm overly confident people!

This typically does two things: it exposes any subjective thoughts that have led them to being overconfident about the issue at hand and it actually helps to foster a relationship between them and myself bc it shows that I am legitimately trying to understand where they are coming from.

View on HN

This is great advice - the socratic method is really key. It also helps to drill into the concrete details (aka facts) rather than staying at a higher subjective level.

I've also found it very helpful to write down the conclusion in a follow up email/slack. Writing helps people consider and rethink their commitments. It also helps serve as a record to self-correct in the future.

Agreed. I would say this answer closely resembles the Socratic method, which is the frame of mind I try to maintain when dealing with the over confident souls out there.

Would agree. I usually try to introduce doubt. Asking questions is the best way. You can do it in a way that makes you sound curious about their approach and forces them to answer(defend) their stance. Question. Question. Then. So if this happens like you say, then this will happen to? Is that the desired outcome?

Edit, just to add. Try to lead them thorough it like its a critical thinking exercise. If you find yourself struggling with the "path" of questions to ask. Just say something like, I'm not convinced that will work. What makes you think it is the best solution? Key is to make them defend their stance and help them see when there is something they haven't considered

I am a loud persuasive person. I have something that works to keep myself checked and also stop people making false arguements.

I proclaim "What does the Interwebs say?" Seriously in our pockets we have the answers to any question that has one. I look it up and proclaim the actual fact, if there is one. Sometimes I proclaim, "I'm a complete idiot" (Happens on IRC the most for me) or hmm seems like we have a different answer. Then it is up to them to argue against what you looked up and it takes it off of you.

Funny thing is my kids growing up groaned when I did that to them. Now they do it all the time now that they are in their 20s.

This works for facts and general knowledge. However I would say that for really difficult questions there is no option to Google. In my experience these come up in business. There are no right or wrong answers just heuristics and past experience.

Excellent advice. I've learned to do this over time and it's really been a win-win approach.

Not saying your advice is bad, but someone who is confident and charismatic will speak in a way that the steps he takes are obvious. For example, if I told you "I wrote this code and it's completely bug free.", you might question it with stuff like "even part X? It's generally the weak point in this kind of systems." but a really good talker will say it in a tone that makes people think that his code is really bug free.

It's something I have noticed, sometimes someone told me something in such a confident tone that I couldn't think of doubting it.

Captain Janeway calls it 'command tone'.

Thanks, it was this expression I was missing.

Giving a n overconfident person a yes/no question like "Even part X?" Is a pretty easy way for them to discard your concern.

However, "Can you walk me through the block of code that performs X?" has the highest probability of sparking an interesting discussion to ensure your concern is met.

I agree that you way of questioning is better, but the hardest part is still to be able to interrupt the person to ask that question.

That is a really great point!

It's called the socratic method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

One such question may be "What is your objective evidence for your statement?"

But you're probably going to have to ask it gently rather than confrontationally. And then you're probably going to have to ask it persistently, because they're going to try to brush you off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com